201. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76673 by _J_ on October 6, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Dear sweet Jesus God.

It's like coming across a river in gold-rush-era USA, with hundreds of people crouched over the banks, shuffling silt in bowls. 'Anyone found any gold yet?' 'Maybe, maybe...hang on'. Every few minutes, someone gets terrifically excited about something shiny in their bowl - a grain, a speck, a smidgeon of...something. Maybe. Maybe not.

Among hundreds upon hundreds of sifters, each certain that the gold is there.

Is there any gold in the river?

I'll tell you what there isn't. There isn't someone at the source of the river emptying huge backs of gold into it. There is nobody with a limitless source of gold deliberately filling the river up with it so that people can find it. That definitely isn't happening.

Here it is again:

If there were a god

who provided a statement of his existence

surely

surely

SURELY

this is not the sort of thing it would write.

Or is our god the sort of Almighty Being who persistently got 'Could do better' comments at deity school?

Come on, now. Take a step back. Does all this make any sense at all?

202. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76664 by _J_ on October 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Veronique

There's another one of these men (can't recall his name) who is languishing in gaol because he defrauded the IRS of tens of thousands of tax dollars.

That'd be Kent Hovind.

Well-put post, by the way.

EDIT - Curse you, Ochs.

203. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76631 by _J_ on October 6, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Ah, happy day. Can this day get any better, I wonder?

[Sighs contentedly]

mother2eight: I have to admire your temperament (perhaps you've had a lot of practice, if you really are a 'mother2eight'!). It is too bad. But, really, when someone spends a long time deliberately doing a lot of bad things, there is good reason to be pleased when justice catches up with them. Not to be pleased about the bad things, or about the sad mess they've made of their lives, but for the fact that and end is being put to it (and that, hopefully, a very worthwhile message is being sent to others).

Imagine if it were a rapist or serial killer. Sure, seeing them sent down doesn't take away the sadness and horror of their crimes. But there's also huge relief that they are being taken out of circulation.

I share with you in shaking my head sadly. But, at the same time: Ding, dong, the witch is dead!

204. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76323 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Speaking as a one-time Pastafarian (and I'll always have some ragu in my blood), I'm very pleased to see this on Fox 'news'. And I didn't really think the tone was too bad - except for the comical tilt-the-head, over-emphasise the word, raise-an-eyebrow disapproval the presenter managed to put into the phrase 'pokes fun at religion'. Seriously, pause the video when she says 'religion'. It's a classic.

My old piratical friends will be overjoyed with this.

(Oh yeah, and as for the mention of hatemail - if you think the occasional quasi trolls we get here are annoying, you want to try the CFSM some time.)

205. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76299 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 11:48 am

BeyondBelief

The reporter is presenting the group as a set of believers in specific dogma

Perfect.

206. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76281 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 10:35 am

Bonzai, 75

Ooh, good idea! I'll second that. Anyone else?

207. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76278 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 10:25 am

LeeC, 1560

I think your time out playing on a Christian thread has very nicely refocused you on the main issue! I totally agree with your post, which is a list of signposts towards the point that the bible is rubbish evidence.

For a God (an Almighty Being) who wants you to believe in Him, providing proof should be no bother at all. Instead, we have the bible, which looks decidedly man-made and cannot by any apparent means be shown to be more than that. Isn't this odd?

It's such a simple matter, but I think it's the point, the whole point and nothing but the point. The bible is to god what crop circles are to alien abductions and what grainy photographs of swans are to Nessie. If Nessie were real, we'd have expected a sodding big signal during one of the occasions when Loch Ness has been sonar scanned. If alien abductions are real, then one - just one - of those 'alien implants' should have shown up in hospital, or one good CCTV recording should exist, or something. And if God is real and actually wants us to know it (as were are to believe He did, back when he was prancing about the Middle East waving clouds and fires and plagues and stone tablets) then we shouldn't be left in a position where we're having to dredge the bible word by word looking for phrases we can optimistically interpret in His favour. Finding evidence for God should be like finding evidence for gravity, not like trying to sustain some obscure and unfashionable conspiracy theory.

Which is why, interesting though it looks, (even more interesting now that Philip1978 has taken an interestingly direct approach to increasing the amount of interest) I've never really got involved in this thread, which seems largely to revolve around analysing little details of the bible. If the point of the bible is to announce God's existence to the world, finding evidence of this therein shouldn't be like looking for, say, an ounce of humanity in Jeremy Kyle. It should be obvious.

The prophecies seemed a good bet, I'll give you that. But even the type of prophecy that's ended up being discussed should be an indication. If God were giving proof in a prophecy, presumably He could do a decent job of it. We could have a full accurate weather report for the whole of 2007, for instance. The ambiguity and overwhelming irrelevence of the sorts of prophecies actually raised is a pretty good sign that God did not write this book.

And I completely agree with your question about why God apparently has to rely on us, His feeble doubting underlings, to spread His word. The Book of Mormon (Bible III: Jesus Does America) is in some ways absurd because there aren't more books like it. Why on earth wouldn't Jesus have done America? And China? And Africa? Possibly even Wales? He's supposed to be God. How hard can it be?

Either there's an almighty God who wants us to know He's there, or there isn't. If there is, there should be bloody clear signs of the fact, because an almighty God who wants you to know He exists shouldn't have a jot of bother making the point. All this equivocating about 'there's evidence' but 'you've got to have faith' is absolute, unselfconscious nonsense, designed to open a sufficiently wide expanse of confusion in people's minds to slot 'god' and his towering collection of absurdities in comfortably.

The only valid argument I can think of to adjust this is 'God wants us to know He exists, but he doesn't want to make it too easy' - the 'God as some sort of puzzle-setter' argument. (Maybe He thinks we'll appreciate Him more if we've had to work to get Him?) Okay, that's plausible. There are lots of ways in which God could 'make it difficult' to recognise Him. He could have left concrete evidence on the Moon, so we had to pass a technological hurdle. He could have signed our DNA, so we had to have a deep knowledge of the processes of life. There could indeed be a revelation of a god's existence still waiting for us to clear some moral or intellectual hurdle - this is possible, but pointless to assume, as we won't know it till it happens.

But, of all the ways in which God could hide His Truth, carefully disguising it to look like bullshit has got to be the least likely. Unless God specifically wants to fill His Kingdom with wishful thinkers and the profoundly irrational, this plan makes absolutely no sense. There are people who specifically target this sector of society, and they are frauds, criminals and aggressive salespeople. Is our opinion of God so low that we expect Him to employ such tactics, when presumably He has every means of persuasion imaginable (and more) at His disposal?

Cheers, LeeC. I think you were hitting the nail on the head, there.

208. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76227 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 6:10 am

dasjoen and Apodeictic

Nice to hear from people with a different opinion. I'd say 'welcome to the site', but it's not my site. You get the sentiment, though.

Interesting to hear that theistic audiences also found the debate format frustrating. Sure, people on this site are often very partisan in support of Dawkins. But quite a lot of discussion takes place on this site between theists and atheists, and even more has been exhibited here in the form of written and recorded interviews. My experience in listening to the present debate – which I expect is shared by many other users – is that I hear Lennox deliver his response to Dawkins and, as he speaks, I hear various claims and manoeuvres that I have seen very persuasively refuted in discussions and free-for-alls, often many times over. I keep wanting to put Lennox on pause and say 'no, because…'. And, having heard Dawkins speak many times, I'm aware that, as he sits in silence, he is probably thinking something quite similar.

Perhaps this is also your experience of listening to Dawkins, from a theistic perspective. You're quite right: this is why a proper debate would've been nice, instead of what sounded rather like 'Professor Dawkins, you said the following …[quote]…How do you plead, before we let the opposition loose on you?'

One thing. Apodeictic, I agree that people on sites like this, myself included, often too easily fall into casually branding people morons and idiots (although it's interesting to watch how comments change and develop once proper arguments emerge in the threads). However, I'm not sure I can agree with the way you're throwing around the word 'rational'. Sure, it's one thing to call Lennox an idiot (unhelpful, probably unjustified), but another to observe that his arguments aren't always paragons of rationality. I'm listening to the debate now, and have just heard the first exchange. Lennox does indeed make various very good and worthwhile observations, largely things that I would fully expect Dawkins to agree with (for example, that secular 'faiths' can be as 'blind' as religious ones). But he also seems to be smoothly orating his way through a number of unsound suggestions.

For example, his use of 'Whitehead's Thesis' [quotation marks only because I'm not familiar with the name, by the way], which he first raises, then treats as fact (other causal arrangements in the motivation of human scientific enterprise are possible), and then unjustifiably turns into a kind of unspoken suggestion that since scientific enquiry was [arguably] originally motivated by religious intuitions, it must remain so; then develops this into a kind of argument from tradition and authority ('Newton thought there was a god behind his discoveries and he was a clever old chap') as a way of finishing his contribution on a rather slap-dash challenge that Dawkins is 'confusing mechanism and agency'. The whole challenge fails to undermine what Dawkins has already said (ie that religious explanations have been helpful in the past, that science has expanded gradually over centuries, and that we are now, today in a position to understand things that were not within are grasp as long ago as, say, Newton). But, thanks to the debate format and to Lennox's glossing over of his assumptions, it comes across as a fairly potent final word on the issue. As arguments go, this is not so much rational as rhetorical.

Still, it's early days yet (in my listening to the recording, that is) and maybe Lennox will prove overwhelmingly rational. Lennox has boldly claimed that his faith is 'evidence based'. Perhaps, as I listen on, he will prove to be the first theist I have ever heard to actually come good on this (very common) claim and present some evidence. (If not, of course, it's going to be hard to regard it as having been a rational claim.)

You've heard the discussion. Should I be holding my breath?

209. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76186 by _J_ on October 5, 2007 at 2:03 am

Bonazai and Veronique

That video is worrying. It's amazing how it shows the way that strong believers can be so completely illogical about their beliefs - how you can choose your beliefs about reality not based on how persuasive they are, but on how closely their bells and whistles suit your conservative tastes. Which is worrying, if not wholly surprising. Wonder if there's a way of pointing out to those involved how daft this is?

On the plus side, Texan mosques look like great places to steal a pair of shoes.

210. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76008 by _J_ on October 4, 2007 at 9:53 am

revcort, 1072

He insists that Strobel should have interviewed more skeptics and that the "experts" he interviewed were too biased or corrupted with religiosity to tell the truth. This is about what I expected to see there.

Interesting tactic for a law journalist, isn't it? You might think he'd be used to the idea of there being a prosecution as well as a defence.

211. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75984 by _J_ on October 4, 2007 at 8:13 am

Dianelos

His result (based on the scientific premises he used) is that the probability of a biologically viable organism coming about by chance is less that 1/10^40000.[...T]he Boeing 747 in the junkyard analogy [...] has nothing to do with his argument.

[Scratches head] Surely, as an analogy, it is a neat representation of what the argument states:

the probability of a biologically viable organism coming about by chance is less than 1/10^40000.

the probability of an aeronautically viable passenger carrier coming about by chance is less than [a very tiny chance].

Maths aside (and Dr Benway's pointed out that there's trouble there), Dawkins gives two refutations to this argument. One is that evolutionary theory is not a theory of chance (but of ratcheting 'trial and error' in which 'errors' are deleted by natural selection and 'successes' survive) and therefore doesn't fall foul of Hoyle's claim, even if that claim is legitimate. The second is that, without a theory like evolution to explain how things as 'complex' or 'apparently designed' or whatever as intelligent beings can arise in the first place, any other solution proposed is susceptible to Hoyle's criticism. Like 'god did it'. To re use a quote that was doing the rounds on another thread, Hoyle - if advocating intelligent design - is shown to be hoist with his own petard.

I'm behind, and dimly remember that you were perhaps arguing not about the evolution of intelligent, or 'complex' (though I don't trust your interpretations of the word 'complex'!) but the original appearance of basic replicators in the first place. I don't see how you can possibly presume to make any confident assessment of the probability of such a thing arising. So far as I can see, it may be less like the spontaneous assembly-by-tornado of a 747, and more like a screw rolling off a flat surface in a breeze.

I see your point about TGD, and this site, containing a lot of philosophy as opposed to science. I'm not sure whether I can accept your charge that 'those who are impressed with its philosophical musings only evidence the fact that they have not studied philosophy' - although, as an (in the main) admirer of TGD, with very little philosophical reading under my belt, I see that I may be involuntarily supporting your argument.

In order to back yourself up, are you able to give a short summary (a list will do - we can google for details) of the chief philosophical errors you think Dawkins commits?

(I hope this isn't going to be 'the hard problem of consciousness' and philosophical zombies again. I already did some net trawling on that, and was happy to discover that my own scepticism was echoed by plenty of real live philosophers. Things like this can't sensibly be called mistakes made by Dawkins, just positions he holds.)

212. A New Debate

Comment #75928 by _J_ on October 4, 2007 at 5:00 am

VanYoungman

Oh, that Matthew Chapman - author of Trials Of The Monkey, about the Scopes trial, and 40 Days and 40 Nights, about the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District trial?

He was interviewed in New Scientist a while back. Having sat through Dover, I'd say he's in as good a position as anyone to comment on how a discussion/interrogation format might represent science in the arena of politics.

EDIT: By the way, Philip1978, sterling work on all these Shakespeare quotes! Keep 'em coming, that all may feel the power of His Almighty Quill.

213. A New Debate

Comment #75895 by _J_ on October 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

Philip1978

I must confess to being more of a London Wasps fan

Well, good luck tomorrow!: http://www.salesharks.com/opponent_profile?team=6

I don't know if I am looking forward to the England match against Australia, we are either to win by a narrow margin or get completely dumped upon!

Oh, how nice it'd be to win! (I really want to see us play Argentina, after catching the end of their game on Sunday.) But (and any of our Australian friends reading can take this as a free gift) I don't honestly fancy our chances. Still, you never know.

214. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75721 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm

[Warning - this is very dull stuff.]

Dr Benway

Not quite like that over here.

I'm no expert in university level education as a whole in the UK. (Perhaps someone will correct any glarin errors in the below.) What I can tell you is largely based on my personal experiences. I studied English. At my university, I was able to exercise some choice over the papers I studied (especially in my final year). All were to do with English. There was a requirement to take one foreign language paper, but this could be sidestepped by studying Varieties of English (a sort of linguistics/history of the English language paper), which is what I did. So, I studied no sciences or maths at university, and the only philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology I came into contact with was through the effects of these various fields on the study of English lit (which, I have to confess, is sometimes garbled into nonsense by self-impressed Eng. Lit. theorists. But not always).

It is my understanding that the great majority of UK univeristies function in more-or-less this way. Course structure varied from institution to instution, but largely there is a single-subject focus for all undergraduates (unless they're taking a joint degree, naturally).

The exception is Scottish universities, which tend to run a four-year (as opposed to three-year) course, in which the first two years include modules in various subjects, before a single subject is selected for the latter two years. Some of my friends, who went to St Andrews, returned reports that made this sound very appealing indeed (like one of them, I may well have found myself switching to psychology had I also attended there). At the time, it was unofficially explained to me that this difference in approach had something to do with pre-university education in Scotland and the rest of the UK - ie, the difference between Scottish Highers and their English equivalent: A-Levels.

Perhaps you are correct that A-Levels perform the function of ensuring breadth of competence. I studied English Lit., History, Geography and General Studies (the latter being a sort of unrevisable 'pub quiz' qualification, taken seriously by few). Students have free choice in their selection of A-Levels (hence no maths or science in my lot) but your choices affect what you can do later. I could not have successfully applied to study Maths or a science at university - I would have needed relevant A-Levels to bridge the gap. Likewise, I wouldn't have been able to do English without my English A-Level (though I dare say some universities would have taken me). For my university, I may have stood in a weaker position had I opted for less mainstream, traditional subjects. (Subjects that end in 'Studies' were regarded with a little suspicion by cynical university application advisors, but that was a decade ago.)

The last time I studied maths or science was the last time that I was required to, which was at the age of 16, for my GCSEs. All British students have to study GCSEs (some exceptions exist, based on the aptitude and competence of individual students: vocational alternatives, or Foundation level courses). Maths and English (Language) are the really core subjects that the majority of courses above GCSE level state as entry requirements. The sciences are also mandatory at GCSE level, as, usually, are a language, possibly a humanity, and often a 'technology' subject (eg design or woodwork).

I have never studied calculus. At all. (At least, not knowingly.)

By the way, it may not be true that a student would have to complete A-Levels to get into Oxford. University applications are handled in this country by an organisation called UCAS. UCAS converts things like A-Level grades into points. An 'A' grade at A-Level equals 10 points. There are alternatives to A-Levels, such as National Diplomas, which tend to be more career-specific. So, one might study something like Media Broadcasting as a National Diploma. A top-grade National Diploma is worth 30 UCAS points - the same as three grade 'A' A-Levels. In principle, therefore, a student with a good ND stands in as strong a position as one with three good A-Levels.

However, Oxford and Cambridge are heavily academic institutions, and will tend to be looking for evidence of broad academic ability in applicants. They may well specify in their prospectuses that they want A-Levels. I expect that they would also accept the International Baccalaureate at Diploma level which is, I believe, offered by some FE (Further Education) institutions.

Oxbridge also differs from the vast majority of UK universities by interviewing all potential new students - a practice that is as much suspected as respected. (Personally, I think it beats randomly throwing most of your applications in the bin, which I am convinced is what Bristol did with mine.)

* * *

Now, avoiding the temptation to enter a discussion with Eric Blair about the difference between arts and sciences, and why there's room in the world for both, I'm shutting up.

215. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75661 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 8:31 am

Dr B

This age thing confuses me too. I would have thought that a batchelor's degree would have to reach the same all-round standards regardless of the age of students taking the course. So it does surprise me somewhat to hear this suggestion that a degree can be deemed unsuitable for school leavers, but still be okay to persist as the same qualification, taking in older undergraduates.

I suppose that our universities and politicans here feel that a degree taken at the age of 18 has some responsibility to give undergraduates a kind of broad education, on top of the specialised study of its particular area. I suppose that older students are felt to have accomplished this by virtue of having been alive longer. (It may be worth noting that, unlike American degree courses, British ones don't generally involve studying various fields before selecting a Major. If you study, say, English, you spend three years studying English. Full stop. Unless you go to a Scottish university.)

Still, I agree that it don't really make no sense. Either Oxford's theology colleges are providing valid degrees or they're not. If they're not, they should be reclassified as vocational or postgraduate diplomas, or something else.

By the way, don't worry too much about the term 'school leavers'. It's not an official term. I spent three and a half years doing marketing for a Further Education college, where my job was to bring in school leavers. In this instance, 'school leavers' were 16 year olds to whom I was preaching about two- and three-year, A-Level and equivalent, courses. 'School leavers' is nothing more than it sounds like: a phrase that means 'people leaving school'.

216. A New Debate

Comment #75654 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 am

hungarianelephant

Sorry, _J_, but I think that's wishful thinking.

Oh, I totally agree! This programme's not going to happen, in any form.

[...] not one voter in 100 could give you a reasonable explanation of the scientific method.

Again, I'm with you, there. That's why I think that such a programme (were it, improbably, to be made) would have to deliberately find ways of explaining what the scientific method is and why it's important that politicians should listen to scientists (like brainsys pointed out, this is the real point, rather than that they should already know any science). You'd want viewers to finish the show thinking 'Gosh, I didn't know science worked like that' and 'Now I see why people are always making such a big deal stem cell research', rather than 'Obama totally whupped Dodd's ass'. Otherwise, I completely agree that the whole thing would do little more than trivialise the issue, turning science into a sort of fun TV game that politicians could have a shot at if they felt like it, and stick their fingers up at otherwise.

I see you're sending the County tickets to Philip1978, so I'm safe. Still, I could probably find a market for them, as the stadium's only about three miles away. (Now, if you've got Sale Sharks tickets, that might be worth a go...)

217. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75597 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 5:38 am

Simon Packer

You sound like a knowledgeable fellow. My objections are the obvious ones.

I cannot believe in the blind programmer, with its awesome high-level interpreter. Still too much irreducible complexity in too many places. Far, far, far too much.

Too much to have occurred in three or four billion years? I don't see how anyone can confidently make such a judgement. Surely the best one can say is 'Well, that idea really blows my mind – but here we are!'. The idea of an all-powerful transcendent invisible Thing that dickers about with organisms for reasons known only to It, and gives only the sort of evidence for Its existence that could also be knocked up by charlatans or pig-ignorant shepherds, is also fairly mind-blowing, if you're not already accustomed to it. Faced with mind-blowing alternatives, do we not think it wisest to go for the one that doesn't require the assumption of stuff for which there is no observable evidence?

Same thing again:

Incidentally Collins sees evolution as mandated by the genetic sequences. I am not a specialist but I see a non intelligently seeded evolutionary scenario as utterly improbable.

In the course of one or two billion years? Once? Anywhere on earth? In conditions of which you have no experience? How improbable does it have to be? How can you make any confident judgement on this? Surely you're stuck in largely the same position as, I think, the rest of us:

1 - there seems not to have been life
2 - then there seems to have been life
3 - life seems to have become increasingly complex (following largely understood mechanisms)
4 – so, somewhere along the lines some form of simple life, capable of initiating those processes (essentially, self replication with very rare errors) formed
5 – that's what we know

Isn't to suppose any sort of deliberate, outside agency in this just a way of buggering the whole question up by ramming vasty chunks of inexplicable assumption into the mix?

And, essentially, the same thing again:

You can see endless meandering in the posts here, even among atheists. This shows the issues don't succumb to neat, certain explanations.

So what? So hard things take time to work out? So different people at different levels of knowledge see things differently? So we haven't got all the answers yet? Your point is…?

The fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is Confusion. Man was never intended to partake of it, Gen ch3.

Oh. I see. 'We don't know everything, therefore there must be an Almighty Thing that doesn't want us to.' This doesn't strike you as random assumption, at all?

From all three points, then, the same question: how can it ever be helpful to an attempt to reasonably weigh up evidence and determine probable truth, to assert hefty pieces of apparent invention as being of equal validity to observable evidence? This is not the way safe conclusions are reached.

218. A New Debate

Comment #75588 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 5:04 am

Lovely idea. If only!

Chapman is right to reflect, at the end, on the importance of understanding the scientific method. But it shouldn't be assumed that the sort of quiz he is describing would automatically cover this. Careful planning would be needed.

Such a show would need to take care not to appear to be merely an irrelevant science quiz, undertaken by politicians only out of concern for publicity. Questions, and their presentation, ought to be deliberately selected and structured to illustrate firstly the methods by which scientific conclusions are reached, and secondly the relationships between science and policy – ie, how scientifically ignorant policy-making (and politicised science) is dangerous.

Good quiz questions educate. The purpose of such a programme, done well, would only secondarily be to illustrate which presidential candidates are scientifically literate. Its primary function should be to impress upon both the audience and the candidates the relevance and importance of scientific awareness and critical thinking to any senior political post.

Such a show would thereby, incidentally, cast any non-attending candidates in a very bad light. To miss a publicity opportunity to show off one's science reading is one thing. To appear to have hidden from a test of an ability that has demonstrated itself to have great bearing on one's competence is something much more serious.

219. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75391 by _J_ on October 2, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Simon Packer, 47
And yet whenever I have been given quotations from CS Lewis in support of theism, he appears to do nothing more than to eloquently trip over his own logic. Strange.

220. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75390 by _J_ on October 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Ooh, I've started a competition!

[Note - This post is just so much semantic pedantry, by the way, but it seems to me that we spend a lot of time in meta-discussions about what we are talking about when we could be getting on with saying it. It'd be nice to have a simple, accurate formulation we could all accept.]

Janet Factor, 41:

The word is "faith."

Good idea, but I reckon it's troublesome. I'm using a seventeen-year-old Concise Oxford Dictionary for reference, here. Several of the meanings given for faith refer to lack of evidence and, specifically, to religious faith – but not all. Definition 2 encapsulates the problem: 'firm belief, esp. without logical proof'. Especially, not necessarily. Quite a lot of arguments between theists and theists deteriorate into skirmishes about semantics, and 'faith' is a popular battle ground. I think trying to turn 'faith' into a word that can only mean 'faith without good evidence' is an unwise uphill struggle against the lexicon. And it imperils nice meanings like '4 duty or commitment to fulfil a trust, promise, etc (keep faith).

eXcommunicate 44:

Irrationality

Well, it's certainly that! But I think atheist and creative genius Gene Roddenberry saw the problem with this one: a flat dismissal of all irrationality would leave us humourless, pointy-eared non-humans, valuable chiefly for our gymnastic eyebrows. We're full of harmless irrationality. It's irrationality-given-undue-authority, irrational-impulses-treated-as-gospel-truth (so to speak!) that I'm looking to define.

Robert Maynard, 21:

Sam Harris: DOGMA!

I reckon this is the leading contender! The definition for 'dogma' is along the right lines (and gives decrees by church authority special mention), and, though it doesn't specifically exclude irrational, non-evidence based tenets, the definition given for 'dogmatic' seems to hone it in the right direction

I'd also like to throw in another possibility: fundamentalism. We tend to apply this only to people who wave machine guns, picket funerals or (casually and sweepingly, on atheistically-inclined sites like this one) to any religious person we find tiresome, worrying or hilarious: 'fundies'. My smelly old COD, though, gives:

1 strict maintenance of traditional Protestant beliefs […] 2 strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, esp. Islam

Clearly, we can apply the concept to other things than Protestantism, Islam and other religions, and it seems as though the concept we are thereby applying is 'strict maintenance of a belief'. To me, that's saying 'sticking to a belief, come what may' – and that's the sort of thing I'm getting. Two problems there: moderates who maintain the core belief in god (for example) but let the details slide a bit might not seem to be 'strictly' maintaining a belief amd, although in a sense they are, it's useful to keep the word 'fundamentalism' for describing the really inflexible believers .The other problem is, so many people already have a vague but confident idea that they know what 'fundamentalism' means, and that it's a nasty word that applies to other people. Getting the millions of believers who are engaged in 'strict maintenance of belief' to see themselves as 'fundamentalists' is going to be about as popular as calling them 'deluded'…

Maybe two words is best? 'Dogmatic ideology?' 'Irrational faith?'

Maybe we should make up a new word? I'd offer a prize, but I don't want to set myself up as some sort of (dogmatic, fundamentalist) authority. (Plus, I'm a cheapskate.)

steve99, 48

Alcohol?

You win.

221. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75303 by _J_ on October 2, 2007 at 9:28 am

There is also a low resolution satellite photograph of Dawkins in the Indian Ocean on Boxing Day 2004. He appears to be vigorously wafting a piece of cardboard.

* * *

By the way, BAEOZ, 15, regarding drive1, 13 - surely Douglas Adams, not Pratchett? On which note, coincidentally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/dirkgently

222. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75298 by _J_ on October 2, 2007 at 9:07 am

This article's just crying out for the disapproval of David Robertson...

It's a much less catchy soundbite, but I think the Weinberg quote would be more accurate, and less liable to incite unnecessary objections, if it finished with words along the lines of:

But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion, or a quasi-religious secular ideology.

Is there a nice, clean, simple word for 'something that generates strongly held beliefs independent of, or contrary to, the weight of evidence'?

223. Harper's Index

Comment #75078 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Well done, perkyjay!

224. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75054 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Cartomancer, 61

Fascinating. Thanks for that post.

225. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75043 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Do what you want. Be nice. Get along. Promote peace. I'm ok. You're ok. [singing "I love you just the way you are"] Don't go changin' to try to please me. [end song] We'll all be fine in the end.

Aww, that sounds lovely!

But I guess then we all have to go to the place with the wailing and gnashing of teeth, eh? Jahweh doesn't put much value in getting along nicely, does He?

I know, I know: He only asked Him to accept Him as god, which is a little thing given what He's supposed to have done for us.

But it seems kind of crazy to me that He should go to such effort to create us, and everything, and spend so long giving us directions and smiting folk, and then put together this intricate redemption strategy to rescue us from the sin that He got us into - and then fail completely in the final detail of giving us one good reason to believe that any of it's true. I mean, just one decent bit of evidence that the other 'false' gods haven't got. One way of telling between the ecstasies of the true faithful and the idolators. Just one thing that isn't clearly more likely to be a mistake or a lie.

It's like working 12-hour days for half your life on some massive project, and then forgetting to sign the contract at the end. Funny, funny sort of God.

Just idle musing there, revcort. Doesn't add anything new to what either of us have said, so don't worry about responding.

EDIT: Aw shit. Forgot I was a troll.

226. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75035 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

The Smart Patrol, 43

The difference, of course, between banging on about literature and scripture, is that it is commonly assumed that literature is fiction, whereas those who study scripture are more often than not under the head-scratching impression that it is true.

Yes.

English is a subject in which literature is dissected with a view to understanding the human psyche, whereas Theology is as nonsensical as undertaking a course regarding the study of fairies.

In so far as this more or less equates to your first sentence, yes. It stands to reason that, since (hopefully) very few English students (or fellows) think that that literature is anything other than something produced by human minds, in order to have certain effects on human minds, it follows that it's an indirect way of prodding at the human psyche. Of course, I don't recall this ever being the stated purpose of studying English. In terms of its academic value, it uses literature as a point of focus for engaging in various academically valuable practices and directions of research, partaking of philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, anthropology and so on. I would say. So:

If Theology can be said to be a proper academic discipline, then there is no reason why a course concerning the study of leprechauns should not be springing up sometime soon.

If human beings had spent centuries engaging in interesting and influential activities unified by their focus on leprechauns, then leprechology might be worth studying as for reasons similar to those that make English worth studying, and theology (in the form in which it is sometimes, at least, taught) worth studying. Your first point just needs to stand as a proviso: to be an academic subject, it needs to be about genuine open enquiry and serious analysis, not just propping up a dubious initial assumption.

English is a proper subject, Theology is not.

It's a fun historical side note that, whilst many of the trappings of modern academia have a monastic heritage and Master of Divinity or Theology used long ago to be the highest degree awarded, the study of English Literature was introduced around a century ago as a course for women. It was thought to be a safe, largely pointless and not unduly challenging thing for them to spend their time messing around with.

It's always worth remembering how vulnerable English is, like other arts and humanities, to pseudoscientific bollocation. When I read Dawkins' 'Postmodernism Disrobed' in A Devil's Chaplain I nearly cheered. I recognised some of the obfuscating fuckwits therein shamed from some of the most deliberately bewildering and apparently pointless lectures and articles I saw at university.

Mind, at least these days there's 'Literary Darwinism'. Is there a 'Theological Darwinism' yet?

On the theology/seminary distinction, let it be noted that there are, I believe, two ways of studying theology here in the UK. You can study it just because you want to study it, as a couple of my friends at university. Or you can study it in order to enter the ministry, as another friend of mine has just begun to. I imagine this makes some difference to what, and how, you are taught. (This is a totally unresearched bit of speculation, but I'd guess that dedicated theology colleges would tend to have a lot of students engaged in the latter.)

Whilst everyone else is having a swipe at Business degrees, I'd like to join in, ignorantly and opportunistically. The crimes of jargon that have been committed by those who have 'trained' in business ought to see no small number going to the guillotine.

227. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74962 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 8:12 am

Robert Maynard

Yes, that makes sense.

The cruel joke is that theology might not be able provide this level of education, and may be consigned to the ranks of.. er.. chainsaw juggling and Feng Shui classes.

Theology seems to be little more than a kind of box in which we previously kept all of our attempts to understand the world. As soon as any particular system of pursuing knowledge becomes sufficiently well defined and independent, it jumps out of the box and carries on on its own. Theology has been left an empty box with only its four bare walls and floor left to study (and selectively borrowing the techniques it has learned from its successors for the purpose). It is left reflecting nostalgically on the significance it once held and struggling to justify and perpetuate the assumptions that it made during the centuries before there were specialised fields of study to address matters rigorously.

228. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74954 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:58 am

Dr Benway

A "school leaver" is someone who has finished secondary education.

Richard Dawkins is a school leaver then. Or do you mean someone who has completed the basics but hasn't done the A levels thing.

A school leaver is someone who has just finished school (or is just about to). The term can be applied to 16 year olds (just leaving secondary school after finishing GCSEs or equivalents) or to 18 year olds (just leaving Further Education after finishing A-Levels or equivalents).

Purely to add to your confusion, you might like to note that university-level education is referred to as Higher Education, or Level 4, where Level 3 (Further Education) is A-Levels and equivalents, and Level 2 is GCSEs and equivalents. (I suspect the Levels are there to help interest young people by making it sound like a video game.)

229. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74950 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

I have to say, university friends of mine who studied theology seemed to be worked off their feet. I remember them having to turn in three essays a week, during times when I only had to contend with one. They learned Hebrew and Ancient Greek (I think) into the bargain. EDIT - by the way, I'm pretty sure one of them was an atheist.

I can appreciate Dawkins' argument that, whilst theology can in practice be full of worthwhile academic pursuits (he lists plenty of examples) the grouping mechanism 'theology' seems vacuous. But then, I studied 'English'. I'm not sure that there's too much more value in pontificating about excellent literature than there is in doing the same for scriptures. Either way, the academic value is about those infamous 'transferable skills' - analysis, research, argumentation and bits of experience in various of the fields Dawkins mentions.

That said, if theology defines itself as Dawkins puts it - as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God" - then there's a problem. That sort of bare assertion runs directly contrary to the principles of teaching students how to gain, process, assess and generate knowledge.

And, as for saying of your theological college 'We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know' - wow! That's just falling on your sword.

230. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74944 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:38 am

Dr Benway - Following Cartomancer: so the implication is that, since the theology colleges have been deemed to be failing to provide a sufficiently stretching educational experience on a for standard-aged first-degree undergraduates, they'll have to start aiming their courses at mature students instead (though why mature students should happily accept sub-par standards I'm not wholly sure). Dawkins is joking that he, as a mature person, might therefore be desirable as a fresh-faced theology undergraduate.

231. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74897 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 3:37 am

Re-reading the post I stuck on here late last night (my local time), I think maybe I should clarify that I was not trying to suggest some kind of covert operation to change your son's mind, tommcc! One of the main points in The God Delusion was that it's not a good thing to try to make young people's minds up for them, and that applies to any belief (or unbelief) system. The book recommendations and so on are meant in the spirit of making sure your son isn't just stuck getting all his information from one particular group and missing out on the other side of the story. Other than try to ensure he's got this sort of freedom to think and read and discuss broadly around the subject, there's not a lot else I'd suggest.

Several friends of mine are intelligent, compassionate and religious. The 'religious' bit gives us something to have unwise late-night debates about. But that's about it. If they were advocating suppression of homosexuality or orchestrating militant soul-winning crusades, I'd have something to complain about. But, in fact, they're nice people, well tuned-in to the predominant moral inclinations of our shared society, who use their freedom of belief differently than I do. It's reasonable for me to disagree with them in the same way that I might about political opinions or whether Jeremy Kyle should be shot at dawn. No more than that, really.

232. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74828 by _J_ on September 30, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Tommcc

I'm no authority at all on this, but here's my suggestion, for what it's worth.

Be cool about him going to church. After all, it's his life, it's best that he works stuff out for himself, many atheists here have been through a born-again period and then become unborn again (including me) and even if the faith does stick - well, frankly, there are worse things that can happen so long as he remains a pleasant, thoughtful sort of a person. (If he's 16, it's probably far too young to tell whether that'll ever happen!)

When I went through my own religious period, I was 22. There were two people whose doubts nagged me. One was a friend of mine from university, and the other was my dad. Both of them explicitly said fine, it was up to me and so on. But both of them were clearly sceptical and gave me the impression, through little things they said and their general attitude, that they believed I should be capable of 'seeing through' religion in some way. Actually, now I think about it, I think the friend, caught off guard, openly said 'I thought you were cleverer than that' or something - but immediately tried to dig himself out of the hole by being very polite and friendly and deliberately nice about it all (though his opinion was still very discernible). My dad didn't say anything so stark as that. But it was clear that he felt that this was probably a phase that I'd think my way out of soon enough. Noticing this, I tried to come across as both secure and intelligent in my faith at the time. But it kicked up the leaves of doubt, a bit.

So, totally support him in going to church. Maybe just raise an eyebrow. And quietly prepare yourself to make a damn good job of any conversations he should raise about god.

In the event of such discussions arising, I would again suggest not barraging him with endless amazing arguments against god. Try to give it just enough. Be supportive of his working things out for himself. Use your understanding of evolution and rationality to raise doubts, but don't try to give him answers. Perhaps try to get hold of a couple of good books (I always recommend The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, as regulars here will be sick of hearing from me; and Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant way both of understanding evolution and of challenging the misrepresentation of him that you mentioned) that you might be able to leave somewhere where he might read them. Or point him towards websites in a completely innocent way - like 'What you were saying about creation the other day - I heard about a site that had some interesting different views on that...'.

Ie (and sorry for being really obvious) if you think there's a rebellion thing going on, don't give anything to rebel about. Just give very modest indications of what you understand and think about things and let him do his own legwork. It'll be worth a lot more to him that way. I reckon.

After all, the whole point about atheism is that it's found through free thinking!

If nothing else seems to be working, here's one other possibility. Does your son read much? If so, you could always try using birthdays and Christmases as opportunities to buy him books that have nothing direct to do with religion, but that have a vein of scepticism running through them. Douglas Adams is perfect. I'm also a fan of A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters, by Julian Barnes. It's just a (brilliant) novel, but his attitude to religion is intelligently sceptical.

Oh - perhaps Derren Brown (check on YouTube, or search on this site for 'Derren Brown' to find his 'Messiah' programme). Also Penn and Teller? James Randi?

By the way, I don't have a family of my own, I'm too young to know what I'm on about and I have no idea about your particular family dynamics. So if what I've said feels wrong for you, it probably is.

All the best, and to your family.

233. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74796 by _J_ on September 30, 2007 at 1:37 pm

SharonMcT

Wondered where you were!

...I read Benway and all I can think of is Benway - damn that Benway.

Dr Benway has a magical power to say things that make you think 'I was thinking that...sort of...but I hadn't really worked it out yet...I wish I'd been thinking that'.

Whilst using his magic lately, Dr Benway noted what a good idea it would be if you could search the comment threads by commenter ID. I agree (of course). Should that function be made available, I will be able to compile a Book of Benway, which can then be published in pamphlet form to be slipped between the covers of Gideons' bibles by the sorts of people who'd usually rather flush them down the loo.

234. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74742 by _J_ on September 30, 2007 at 8:01 am

Northern Bright, 191

That's incredible.

A post from a Christian-turned-sceptic called Tommy recently appeared on the Free Church website. Note this bit:

[...] in my search for Christian literature to help address my questions, I read David Robertson's little book of letters. In fact, perhaps counter-intuitively I read it first and am only now just beginning to read Dawkins' book which David critiques.

[...] I got hold of [The Dawkins Letters] because I read some reviews (I think on Amazon) which gave the impression that this response to Dawkins really was the best of the bunch. [...] So I set about reading The Dawkins Letters with an expectancy that this would somehow deal with the key points I had heard Dawkins was making. Instead I was disappointed to find the usual evangelical spin on most of these, and in some chapters where Robertson seemed almost to dodge the issues at hand.

What's that? The Dawkins Letters not only unpersuasive, but sufficiently unsuccessful to actually do TGD's work for it? Fancy that.

Perhaps our dog should praise his fleas after all.

235. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74631 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 6:25 pm

steve99
Don't take this the wrong way - I'd be delighted to see your face - but I'm rather fond of your invisible man avatar.

More power to you with your 'coming out', though. [E-pat-on-the-back of support.]

236. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74627 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 6:11 pm

David

God knows if you'll ever read this, since you've done another Keyser Soze. Nevertheless:

I initially wrote quite a few things in response to your post.

I think they were mainly for my own benefit, and they were very cathartic. But I think posting them would be counterproductive.

I don't like this. I was happy largely agreeing to disagree, so long as we were square on a few points. I even thought maybe we were at the point where we could basically shake hands and concern ourselves with worrying about the world's Ken Hams and jihadis.

But then I find you hacking at what I had believed to be our common ground, still associating atheism with cold amorality, still refusing to engage with the arguments and instead attacking the tone of voice, still making grandiose claims to evidence that somehow never materialises. And I despair, because the agreement I thought we had turns out to have been an illusion, and the David I thought I was getting on reasonably well with just a mask, or a mirage of my own invention.

Argumentatively I think I have now given up. Perhaps you can be reasoned with, but I don't have what it takes to do it. I don't know whether the practice in self-restraint outweighs the cost to my blood pressure in persisting in discussions that make me want to put my forehead through my monitor.

Somehow I feel that all of our discussions involve my having to bend over backwards to the point of breaking my spine in order to understand your arguments, whilst you are allowed to distort and re-interpret mine at leisure. Carrying on, I think, is probably just indulging in 'the Concorde fallacy' (yes, again, I owe Dawkins for that term) or vainly flattering my own powers of persuasion.

Specifically on the elephant argument: I'm not going there. I have covered exactly this ground, using different examples, on your website. Nothing that you have raised here in refutation of the argument (and you have raised very, very little, above repetitions of how ridiculous you find your own straw-man misconception of it) rebuts the points I made to you there. (I'm sorry you find me so digressive. In part, it's true: I am. In part, though, I am deliberately going miles out of my way to constrain the sidestepping you habitually engage in to avoid the arguments that are put to you.) If you don't find my arguments there convincing, then either you can do a decent job of telling me why, or this line of conversation is at an end. Waving a flag might convince your die-hards that you've scored a point, but I couldn't give a damn. The approval of an audience that doesn't understand what it's being shown isn't worth the breath it is expressed with.

And, just to deal with this:

J, I thought you were meant to be the 'nice, tolerant' one.

I have no idea what I'm 'supposed' to be. I am what I am: bang out of patience.

Why are you so dismissive of anyone who would dare to disagree with you? Why do they have to be children?

To borrow an Americanism: Way to engage with an argument, David. Why teacher and child? It was the first scenario that made a reasonably accurate metaphor that I could think of. If it makes you happier, feel free to re-imagine the scene, from the following starting point:

Nobel laureate: I have a baby unicorn.
Mad, stinking, raving murderer and rapist: Really? Gosh, lucky you. Show me the unicorn.
Nobel laureate: I have a baby unicorn.
...

Etc, ad nauseum. The only change I can see is what's likely to happen to the Nobel laureate at the end of it.

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.

That's terrible. I hope your better qualities (call them god, if you wish) are with you in offering those people support at this time. And that you can help them engage their own. I personally lack the experience to imagine how awful this must be. I hope you can do better than I would.

Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.

The cheap shot is entirely forgiveable in the circumstances. I assume that you will have the basic human decency to cringe when you look back on it in future, but I hope that you won't be too hard on yourself, given how you must be feeling at the time of writing. Perhaps, in light of these circumstances, I should really not be replying to your post at all, as it's unlikely to be representative of you at your best.

But I'm weak, and eager to write while this is fresh in my mind. If you subsequently feel that I was attacking a 'you' that isn't the normal you, please feel free to avail yourself of the excuse that the situation you have described affords you.

On this cheap shot: understandable though it is, I would still hope that the reams of text that I and others have written to you – in spite of my digressions and failure to say exactly what you would like me to say all of the time, and of sporadic outbursts of vitriol and frustration – would be enough to give the lie to the idea that atheists see humans as cheap, disposable and worth nothing more than the chemicals they are made of. I've addressed it specifically, more than once, and I'm sure it's been plentifully evident in other people's posts. If you still can't see that, David, then…really, I don't know what to say. It's not just a problem of religion, it's literally a problem of basic comprehension. I don't know. If you are determined to cling to that attitude (and I hope this is an aberration of the moment) then there's really nothing I can say to you.

Oh, before I bugger off, just one thing, since it's a bit more in my field. The quote is 'Hoist with his own petard'. Hamlet, Act III, Sc.iv., line 209. Hoist. Not 'hoisted'. Have you no sense of rhythm?

I suggest reading Hamlet instead of the bible once in a while. The most brilliant academic I've ever personally met reckoned it 'the best play ever written in time and space'. In terms of sheer density, insight and profundity, it'll knock anything else you can lay your hands on into a cocked hat. Purely in terms of maturely addressing the tensions of trying to map religion into real life, it's light years ahead of the bible. In terms of literature, there's no comparison. The bible might have its strengths; but, as they say, it sure ain't Shakespeare. And it might improve your standards of quotation.

By the way: did you know that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by god? I'm not joking. This is a fact. Shakespeare's writings surpass the bible in beauty, coherency, knowledge and insight into the human condition. They were written in a fraction of the time that the bible took, apparently all by one man. The idea that any single modest Jacobethan could have knocked them together is clearly laughable.

No, it's quite clear to me that the real god wrote the works of Shakespeare, either because he felt that his earlier efforts in the bible needed updating, or because he was sick to death of us treating that jury-rigged scrapbook as divine. I have it from a proper, PhD-holding biblical scholar that the bible nowhere claims unambiguously to be, in its totality, the inerrant word of god. Weigh 'em up: which seems more likely to be god's work? In terms of every criterion I can think of, speaking with my gut as well as my brain, it's Shakespeare. Shakespeare makes the bible look like cave scratchings from the Neanderthals' equivalent of a padded cell.

I'm sure you disagree. And I'm similarly sure that you have no good argument to show that your disagreement is more valid than my opinion.

Shakespeare was god. Accept it. (And he has a special hell for people who misquote him.)

Anyway.

Take care of yourself, David, and your parishioners. And let me know if you ever visit Borders in Stockport. I'll buy you a coffee, and probably won't throw it at you.

237. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74575 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Just wanted to say: some cracking posts in the last 20 comments, Dr Benway and steve99.

The circular pointlessness of discussing with Dianelos broke my patience threshold. (No offence meant, Dianelos. Perhaps the flaw is mine.) So I don't really hold out any hope of learning anything new when I glance at arguments with him anymore. He does tend to throw up all sorts of interesting tangents, but I feel as though I've even seen all of those. But you guys manage to keep pulling rabbits out of hats I thought had run dry. I've copied 283 and 284 as the best summary and refutation of the wrongs in Dianelos' argument that I have seen - thank you Dr B (do you do weddings, birthdays and bar mitzvahs?). And your tireless point by point fighting over specific issues is remarkable, steve99.

Just wanted to say.

Lauregon - no, Dr Benway isn't joking. Dianelos spelt it out in the the McGrath thread. I'm weird about this point, though, in that I vastly prefer Dianelos' take on the resurrection to any standard Christian one. Its underlying message is really harmless, and paints a picture of quite a sympathetic, 'human' god. It avoids the massive moral screw-up that dogs normal Christianity (ie the notion that believing in god is far more important than anything you actually do to anyone else in the course of your life).

Of course, it's evidentially on a par with Hansel and Gretel. But that's true of all resurrection claims.

238. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74501 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 7:19 am

David 'Wee Flea' Robertson

by the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge.

Oh – my – god.

Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Really? Gosh, lucky you. Show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: So you say: show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Please show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Show me the unicorn
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: The unicorn. Now.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Show me, or be quiet about it.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Okay, enough now. On with the lesson.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Quiet.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: One more time…
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Stand outside.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Outside, now.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.

Do they teach this tactic in theological college? Or do you have to be genetically predisposed to it?

I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.

I'm glad you found some other children to share your unicorn with. I hope I never find myself relying on them to make any sort of responsible judgement about anything.

J. I'm very disappointed in you. I thought that you despised the notion of people believing irrationally? Is that not the whole crux of your argument?

Now, how have I given you this impression? Perhaps when I wrote, to you, on your site:

Of course, I have counter-naturalistic inclinations – I get a bit obsessive compulsive sometimes and repeatedly check that the gas is turned off, or if don't like to entertain the idea of a car crash or plane accident in case my thoughts somehow make it happen. But I consciously know that these are silly thoughts and that they themselves have naturalistic explanations, and that they are not things to govern my life by. I expect you do the same.

Or could it have been this bit:

David, I don't think your faith is a problem. As I hope I have acknowledged, time and again, as far as I can tell, your faith – factually wrong though I genuinely think it is – is nevertheless very well crafted and overwhelmingly a force for good. (Minus those comments about atheism cheapening life, of course. That's a serious error.)

Or this bit:

We faithless would be happy enough to bite our lips and let you get on with praising the god of your choice – no matter how implausible – if there was really no harm in it.

Gosh, there are just so many examples of my fundamentalistic intolerance!

I am not about to try to summarize what I have spent hours and hours of my life trying carefully to explain to you, David. If I could do that, it wouldn't have taken tens of thousand of words already.

Perhaps you can answer me one question. If, after having an argument spelt out to you at such length, and reformed, qualified and restated in response to your questions and challenges, you can still respond with gross misrepresentations like this one (whether because you wilfully disregard what you have heard or because you genuinely can't understand it, I really don't know) than just what on earth is the point in anyone talking to you?

I am overcome with a profound sense of having wasted a large part of my year. I had at least thought you a well-meaning man and a preacher with some integrity. You don't seem to be leaving me much material upon which to continue that assumption. I hope you are just passing through some sort of temporary amnesia or argumentative red mist.

I am deeply disappointed.

239. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74347 by _J_ on September 28, 2007 at 7:50 am

Ilovelucy

Derrida free, of course.

Hmm. Significantly more than he's worth.

240. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74343 by _J_ on September 28, 2007 at 7:43 am

d4m14n

Thanks for that YouTube RRS link. Nice little video - well done to the RRS for that one.

I suppose they're like having a group of university friends who are very keen rationalist atheists at university. That's a valuable thing, as a lot of people just won't have those sorts of friends. Everyone's friends occasionally mouth off or do something daft. Doesn't stop 'em being worth talking to, or detract from what they say and do the rest of the time.

241. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74113 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 9:10 am

Ilovelucy

Maybe lions just haven't found the right herding niche yet.

Perhaps they might work with flocks of the faithful. I believe the Romans conducted some experiments in this arena.

242. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74112 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 9:06 am

Dianelos

Because if by "evidence" you mean "objective evidence" then it's true that there is none for theism but then there is none for naturalism either.

Still this unworkable polarisation? Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as objective evidence. Fine. Let's be childish and bin the word 'objective' entirely, then. So, all we have is a sea of subjectivity.

So, how can I judge the difference between, say, the risk of my being run over if I cross the road in front of a speeding truck, and the risk of my being eaten by the giant invisible pterodactyl that may even now be inches behind me if I don't make a run for it?

Because there are degrees of objectivity, aren't there, Dianelos? We've been over and over and over this, haven't we, Dianelos? Yet you insist on treating one man's tried and tested conclusions and another's flight of fancy as empirically equivalent. Well, I can see how that helps your argument, but not why you think it will encourage anyone else to take it seriously.

If you think about it you'll see that according to that definition to actually say "I am an atheist" is self-negating. Why? Because before knowing that you are an atheist in that sense you must have thought about whether you lack belief in God, and if so you must have thought what "belief in God" means in the first place, but if you actually thought what "belief in God" means you will have formed at least some belief about God so you can't truly lack such belief :-)

Oh, for crying out loud, Dianelos, 'lack of belief in God' is just economical shorthand for 'lack of belief in the existence of God', as you are fully capable of apprehending. Of course there are some beliefs involved - belief that the word 'god' has some meaning in the English language, for example. Why do you whisk up these pointless little eddies of semantic irrelevance?

'Belief' is one of those awkward words that, rather like 'faith', is tainted by common usage in contexts where it is silently accompanied by 'without good evidence'. Yes, we sometimes linguistically trip ourselves up trying to tiptoe around stigmatised words. Strangely, though, most of us don't find this a barrier to communication.

If it makes you happier, my particular atheism amounts to 'I believe that it is far more likely that no gods exist than that they do, based on my observations so far.' I would place the border between 'sceptical agnostic' and 'mild/weak atheist' at around the point where people, when asked if there's a god, stop saying 'I really don't know, but I'd guess not at a push', and start saying 'I think probably not, but I don't know for sure'.

243. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74103 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 8:35 am

Ilovelucy

re: Yorker's avatar: 'Cat's don't herd, huh?'

I read that as a cunning switch from 'herd' as intransitive verb to 'herd' as transitive. Ie, lions herd wildebeest. Kind of.

244. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74099 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 8:25 am

Dianelos,

Shooting from the hip (I've lent my copy of TGD out):

- the original 747 argument suggests that a designer is necessary for life to have emerged.

- Dawkins' response to the 747 argument demonstrates, as Dr Benway describes, that a conscious designer is not a necessity. It does so by explaining a non-designer based alternative.

- the 747 argument is not the only argument in the chapter of TGD called "Why there almost certainly is no god". (Or, at least - as I'm remembering this from a year ago - it shouldn't be.) Having established that a designer is not required, our consideration of the likelihood of one then kicks in.

- Dawkins also has spent seven of his nine books explaining the nature of the system that he proposes as an alternative to the designer, where we are talking about the neo-Darwinian evolution of life. The evidence for this is overwhelming. He has also at times commented on various theories regarding the initial origins of life. These latter theories may strike you as likely to be correct to a greater or lesser degree. But, even if you're pretty sceptical...

- ...Dr Benway's 'what am I holding my coffee in?' analogy does a good job* of making clear the point that, if you have two possible sources of an explanation, where one of those sources falls squarely within the field of things that are known to exist, whilst the other relies wholly on your powers of invention, the former source is the logical thing to regard as probably true.

[*Notwithstanding your subsequent attempt to re-write the analogy into something you preferred the meaning of.]

As for your comment:

Well Darwinism refutes that thesis pretty unequivocally and on scientific grounds, so why would the world need Dawkins's philosophical argument on top?

Because, very clearly, not everybody in the world got the point from Darwinism alone. Equally clearly, a great number of people still don't get it, even with the addition of the 747 argument and much else besides. Arguing from the ignorance of others does not persuade.

Perhaps I'm misremembering TGD, and the chapter in question really is nothing more than a repetition of the 747 argument stretched way too thing and forced to suggest things that it doesn't. I doubt this very strongly, but even if it's so, the rubbishness of one chapter of TGD does nothing to invalidate the perfectly good arguments that it could have, and should have, contained.

245. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74091 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 7:53 am

No, SG and BillySands, no! Repent, you fools!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0096/0096_01.asp

246. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74076 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 6:53 am

Q - Seems to be just this thread. I'll go and ask. Cheers.

247. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74071 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 6:44 am

Am I back in the real, blue-grey world, I wonder...?

EDIT - No. Clearly not.

248. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74056 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 6:05 am

Quetz - all three of my comments were made in the regular thread. I even deleted and reposted the first one a couple of times.

My posts seem to be automatically rerouting to this place.

Josh, why has thou forsaken me...?

249. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74055 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 6:04 am

If this one ends in the alternative bin as well, I guess I'm a permanent troll now.

Any thoughts on that, anyone?

Can anyone hear me in this scary yellow limbo...?

250. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74050 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 6:00 am

Um, why are my comments deflecting to the 'alternative' thread...?